Question RE: Veiling

[nickybr38]

You presented it the way you did in order to prove your point. And that is the slippery slope with this.

The Church NEVER instructed any woman to “veil” herself as a way of indicating she was submissive to her husband. I was never taught that in Catholic school, never instructed in that during Cana conferences, never heard of such a thing until this subject came up on the boards. And I do believe it is dangerous.

Submit to my husband…all depends. He is not always right and when he isn’t, it is disucssed. And I’m not always right, so it too is discussed. I am not a serf, nor a peasant nor his slave. And he isn’t mine.

I did not present it to prove my point that veiling somehow magically makes a woman a submissive wife. You’re misreading me - or I’m miswriting…

I misread your post to mean you were saying no woman should EVER be submissive to her husband… and for a moment I forgot about veils and was just struck by how… unscriptural that was.

But this isn’t a topic about submission so we’ll leave it alone.

 

[dixieagle]

I can’t see how you can say that, it’s clearly the opposite of what the passage is saying.

“Doth not even nature itself teach you”

Shows a reference to natural law, not discipline, in other words, it is fundamental and unchangeable – the disciplinary law of the Church cannot affect it whether explicitly enforced or not it is always there, it is part of natural law.

The “judge for yourself” is to have you look interiorly at the natural law basis for the teaching, it’s a rhetorical question – stating that it should be clear on the face of it if you understand it from the law written in the heart.

The angels themselves are not bound by disciplinary laws – in other words, the angels point of view is not going to change. It is there in scripture and that is not going to change there either.

Shin, we happen to be Catholics (in the 21st century) and, as Catholics, we are to take our direction from Holy Mother Church, as She deems fit in *this *day and age. While essential dogma can never change, laws and discipline can, and do. “Veiling”, “covering one’s head” - whatever you wish to call it - was never dogma, only (changeable) discipline.

As I pointed out previously, in post #51, even the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith placed “veiling” in context. Should the Church decide that the practice of covering women’s heads regains “normative value”, I trust completely that the faithful will be informed and the practice again made mandatory.

Suggesting that the old tradition of women covering their heads has anything whatsoever to do with “natural law”, is absurd.

 

[Aramis]

Any appeal to natural law in re veiling can only go the other way; we are born naked, and many die naked, and clothing only became important because of the sin of Adam.

 

[nickybr38]

Agreed. If you are wearing to place yourselves above others then you’re totally missing the point.

I really am surprised my question spawned all this. Haha. Like I said, this is a hot topic I guess.

 

[FaustinaClare]

I’m a convert of course and I don’t have any Catholic relatives so I can’t say “Way back when my great grandmother wore this or that”.

When I came into the Church I wore a veil. Why? B/c during my research I had come across the Pre Vatican II reasoning of why women wore veils and I thought it was beautiful and respectful.

I’m sure if Jesus Christ came down here right now I would want to be prostrate in front of him and be as modest as possible. If that means having my head covered by some means then so be it. We all know that Jesus is truly present in the Mass.

I think the reason people stopped covering their heads is b/c VII didn’t talk about it so people assumed that since the VII documents didn’t say Yay or Nay then it was automatically Nay. Therefore, people stopped covering.

It is a beautiful tradition, and there are many people who are scared to veil, myself included, b/c of what people may think since my parish isn’t traditional nor offeres the Tridentine Mass.

The purpose of the covering is to be modest and not to draw attention to yourself but today veiling seems to call attention to yourself and I don’t want to do that. I am a lector at my parish and I’ve always felt bad about walking to the podium without a head covering. To start doing it now would seem kind of wrong though since I haven’t done it before. Plus if I were to be REALLY traditional, as a woman I shouldn’t even be a lector.

It’s a crazy business.

 

[Palomas]

I was alive then and lived in a very mixed community of English, German, Irish, Italians, Slavs, Hungarians, Ukranians etc. We mixed. Aim was to be American. Bought hats. Nuns hated babushkas so you did not wear them. No priest nor nun ever got up and told us to cover our heads outside of Church. No one told us to cover our heads as married women because it was a sign of being subserviant to husbands. Women worked. They didn’t sit in offices with their heads covered.

Good to hear that there was more mixing of cultures in your area than I was aware of. The point of my post was to address the question that certain posters have on this thread about why women and girls these days romaniticize about veiling – wearing a veil – as opposed to a hat. And I was analyzing why that may be so. Maybe it just comes down to they think it’s prettier than a hat, who knows.

They didn’t sit in offices with their heads covered.

Are you saying no one wore hats outside the home?

 

[aicirt]

Good to hear that there was more mixing of cultures in your area than I was aware of. The point of my post was to address the question that certain posters have on this thread about why women and girls these days romaniticize about veiling – wearing a veil – as opposed to a hat. And I was analyzing why that may be so. Maybe it just comes down to they think it’s prettier than a hat, who knows.

Are you saying no one wore hats outside the home?

Yes, women did wear hats out. Hats, or some type of head covering, were mandatory in Church.

I’m referring to the idea that there was some edict for women to cover their heads other than in Church. There wasn’t. If there had been that custom, you would have seen working women wearing hats while at work…like sitting at desks, waiting tables, teaching etc.

 

[jeanannemarie]

The nuns took vows. They were the only ones “veiled”. Your everyday housewife, with the exception of your Mom, were not walking around with their heads covered in some type of shawl or veil.

Please tell me, and I have asked this before, where you find the Church ever stating that a woman must cover her head when she’s out and about?

And tone down your attitude, please.

This last comment strikes me as highly inappropriate. Can’t this conversation remain charitable? This is a subject that can be discussed with generosity to those who have a different opinion.

 

[Lamafacaja]

Wear 'em! It’s “biblical”. www.rosamysticamantilla.com

 

[Shin]

Suggesting that the old tradition of women covering their heads has anything whatsoever to do with “natural law”, is absurd.

If you think something can happen for 2,000 years and not have intrinsic moral reasons for happening… What more can anyone say to you?

One will have to leave it at that until whatever’s missing from your equation fills itself in later on for you.

On the context of bad changes of discipline:

'Know this too: that if some pope concedes to priests a license to contract carnal marriage, God will condemn him to a sentence as great, in a spiritual way, as that which the law justly inflicts in a corporeal way on a man who has transgressed so gravely that he must have his eyes gouged out, his tongue and lips, nose and ears cut off, his hands and feet amputated, all his body’s blood spilled out to grow completely cold, and finally, his whole bloodless corpse cast out to be devoured by dogs and other wild beasts. Similar things would truly happen in a spiritual way to that pope who were to go against the aforementioned preordinance and will of God and concede to priests such a license to
contract marriage.

For that same pope would be totally deprived by God of his spiritual sight and hearing, and of his spiritual words and deeds. All his spiritual wisdom would grow completely cold; and finally, after his death, his soul would be cast out to be tortured eternally in hell so that there it might become the food of demons everlastingly and without end. Yes, even if Saint Gregory the Pope had made this statute, in the aforesaid sentence he would never have obtained mercy from God if he had not humbly revoked his statute before his death.’

The Blessed Virgin Mary to St. Bridget of Sweden

‘I do not think that many priests are saved, but that those who perish are far more numerous. The reason is that the office requires a great soul. For there are many things to make a priest swerve from rectitude, and he requires great vigilance on every side.’

St. John Chrysostom, Father and Doctor of the Church

 

[Lamafacaja]

Oh, good grief that terrifies me. I don’t stand a chance. Shin, you’re a hard woman you are.

 

[aicirt]

This last comment strikes me as highly inappropriate. Can’t this conversation remain charitable? This is a subject that can be discussed with generosity to those who have a different opinion.

Perhaps you should read the poster’s comments to me and then you might understand why I responded the way I did.

 

[Shin]

Oh, good grief that terrifies me. I don’t stand a chance. Shin, you’re a hard woman you are.

Now now, Hell is motivating in a good way if you treat it right!

 

[dixieagle]

I think the reason people stopped covering their heads is b/c VII didn’t talk about it so people assumed that since the VII documents didn’t say Yay or Nay then it was automatically Nay. Therefore, people stopped covering.

Clearly, you are a devout and committed Catholic convert.

A little history of hat/headgear: Beginning at about the end of the 16th century, headgear for women shifted from veils and the like to hats. The wearing of hats (or whatever) as a matter of course in daily life faded out during - approximately - the 1960s (JFK didn’t wear a hat to his inauguration, and that is cited as one reason men stopped wearing them.)

As women became more active, working during WWII and afterward, headgear became more practical and wasn’t always worn. By the 1960s, the practice became sporadic, as hairstyles were more elaborate (kind of hard to wear most hats with those teased, sprayed, “bouffant” hairdos!) Though you would still certainly see some lovely hats (think Ascot, Princess Diana) most people had stopped wearing them, most of the time. You just were no longer considered “low class” or not quite dressed without your head covered.

As you stated, the headcovering issue was not mentioned in any of the many documents of Vatican II. It was in 1976 that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in Inter Insigniores, included that statement (previously referenced) about veiling have been a practice of the “customs of the period” and no longer having a “normative value”. papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6interi.htm

Not long afterwards, the new Code of Canon Law (1983) abrogated the old (1917) code, and - significantly - did not include anything at all resembling Canon 1262, which had mandated not only that women cover their heads, but indicated that women should sit apart from men in Church! (You’ll find few people insisting that separation of the sexes in Church should still be the norm.)

So, though some try to insist that the Church has not actually expressed an opinion, I maintain that She has, indeed, both by inclusion (Inter Insigniores) and omission (nothing in the new Code.)

So, cover your head when and if you choose, as no one should suggest you should not, but understand what the Church has - and has not - said on the subject.

 

[dixieagle]

If you think something can happen for 2,000 years and not have intrinsic moral reasons for happening… What more can anyone say to you?

There is no way that plunking a piece of fabric, felt or lace on one’s head can have any “intrinsic moral reason”. It was a mutable Church law, and is no longer.

I have no objection - as I have stated - to anyone covering her head in the manner Catholic women were once required to. Women who do so are participating in a practice that they sincerely believe shows respect and honors God.

I do object to any effort to insist that we should all be doing so, when Holy Mother Church has declined - in Her infinite wisdom - to make such a pronouncement. We must be careful not to impose our own rules on others when he Church has not.